5/^ ^^^ 

■ D 13 



/3 



7 



/^C^ 



SF 268 
.D13 
Copy 1 



^^^^^....^^ _ 






THE OLEOMARGARINE BILL. 



SPEECH 



HON. HERMAN B. DAHLE, 



OF WISCONSIN, 



r ^ 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



Thursday, May 17, 1900. 



1900. 







<? " 



^^ f 






^^ 



(o'i 



Cor.g. Record Off," 
10 J^.' 01 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. HERMAN B. DAHLE. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole Hoiise on the state of the 
Union, and having under consideration the bill (S. 3410) making further pro- 
vision for a civil government for Alaska, and for other purposes- 
Mr. DAHLE said: 

Mr. Chairman: I will not euter into any general discussion of 
the pending bill (the Alaska code), btit will take advantage of the 
rules and practice of the House and will speak on a measure of 
very great importance to the j)roducers and consumers of dairy 
products of our country. 

The magnitude of the dairy industry in my State, and especially 
in my district, emboldens me to address the House on the subject 
of suitable protection for that industry from unfair and ruinous 
competition. There is an old maxim to the effect that when the 
farmer is prosperous the country is prosperous, but that when the 
farmer is not prospering the country can not long prosper with- 
out him. The experience of generations has proven the truth of 
the saying. There can be no enduring prosperity unless it is 
based on the welfare of the men who till the soil. 

There has been before the House for the greater part of this ses- 
sion a bill (H. R. 3717), introduced by Mr. Grout, of Vermont, 
which I believe will do more to promote the legitimate prosper- 
ity of the agricultural interests of the country than any measure 
which has been before Congress for many years. It will not only 
promote the interests of the agricultural population, but will do 
so notwithstanding the assertions of those opposed to it, without 
injuring any legitimate industry which places reliable, pure prod- 
ucts on a fair market and is free from fraud. 

This bill, if passed, will serve two purposes. It will not only 
safeguard the interests of the producer of butter, but will at the 
same time protect the consumer from deception in the nature of 
4517 3 



the food lie buys, and enable him to buy butter if he wishes but- 
ter, and oleomargarine if he wishes oleomargarine, at the proper 
price for each commodity. The bill to which I refer has been 
extensively misrepresented. It simply provides that oleomargar- 
ine shall be sold as oleomargarine and not as butter, and that 
consumers seeking butter shall not be imposed upon. The bill 
seeks to place each industry on its own basis and make each 
stand or fall by its own merits. Can anything be more fair? 
Wnat injustice is there in this proposition? 

If the manufacture of oleomargarine is a legitimate industry, 
free from fraud, what wrong is there to it to require its product 
to be sold on the open market for what it really is, and not for 
something which it is not? We have heard a great deal during 
this session about this bill being an effort to crush a legitimate 
business. How can a legitimate business be crushed by a law 
which requires its product to be sold for what it actually is? The 
cry raised hj the friends of imitation butter that the bill will ruin 
them is a confession that they depend on selling their imitation 
for butter to continue that enormous business and to reap the 
enormous profits they have been reaping. 

The cry against this bill is a confession from the men engaged 
in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine that their great 
profits, amounting in some cases to over 100 per cent, depend on 
fraud and the deception of the consumer. When has a more 
startling position been taken before a committee of this House by 
the representatives of any industry? The farmers of the nation 
come to us with a memorial for protection from fraudulent and 
ruinous competition with imitation butter, and the representatives 
of the manufacturers of that imitation come before us and demand 
that they be permitted to sell an imitation to deceive the consumer 
and to ruin the farmer. 

We are asked to place each industry on its own basis; make 
each class of producers sell their product for what it is — butter 
as butter and oleomargarine as oleomargarine. We are asked to 
protect the consumer from being deceived as to the food he buys; 
to protect him from being given oleomargarine, or some other 
imitation, when he asks for and pays the price of butter. A more 
fair and just proposition was never laid before Congress. 

4517 



The importance and necessity of some sucli legislation as this 
is readily seen, when it is remembered that the oleomargarine 
manufacture has doubled and more than doubled in the past four 
years. The oleomargarine factories of the United States produced 
45,000,000 pounds of the imitation in 1897, and in 1899 the amount 
had risen to 83,000,000 pounds. Of this the greater part was con- 
sumed under the belief that it was butter. 

Were it not that the greater part was palmed off as butter, 
this bill would not have received the support it has received from 
the farmers and butter consumers of the United States. Congress 
was not ajipealed to unt-l every other method of protectins; the 
dairy industry from this fraudulent and ruinous comiDetition had 
been exhausted. A majority of the States of the Union have en- 
acted laws forbidding oleomargarine being colored to imitate but- 
ter, but from the very nature of things these laws have been 
found insufficient to jn-otect either the producer or consumer of 
butter. Oleomargarine manufactured in one State can be sold in 
another in violation of law, and the officials of neither State can 
successfully ti'ace the shipment and effectively enforce the law. 

Twenty years' experience has demonstrated that imitation but- 
ter of any kind can be sold by the dealer to his customers for 
butter if it be colored to imitate butter, and the substitution is 
difficult of detection. Any law which seeks to prevent the sale 
of colored oleomargarine as butter to the consumer by the retailer 
is very difficult of enforcement, and is on the whole impracticable. 
Experience in the State of Wisconsin has shown that the proper 
way to protect the legitimate butter industry is to so tax the man- 
ufacture of oleomargarine colored to imitate butter that its cost 
to the retailer will be equal to that of butter and the incentive to 
fraud is thereby done away with. 

Under existing conditions the temptation to substitute the 
cheaper imitation for butter when sold to the consumer at retail 
is very strong. Both kind of goods look alike, and the unskilled 
consumer can not detect the difference. The dealer will get a 
profit of perhaps 2 or 3 cents a pound on the butter and twice as 
much or more on the oleomargarine. Eoth kinds of goods are 
kept in the same refrigerator. 

The opportunity for substitution and fraud on the consumer ia 
4617 



6 

more than the morals of many men can stand, and the result is 
that multitudes are given oleomargarine, costing the dealer from 
10 to 15 cents a pound, in place of butter which was called for 
and which cost the dealer 18 to 28 cents a pound. The customer 
paj's for butter. As long as the dealer confines his sales of oleo- 
margarine as butter to known customers, whom he can rely on 
not investigating the nature of the goods they are supplied with, 
he is comparatively safe, and may continue his fraxidulent prac- 
tices for a long period of time and reap the large i)rofits resulting 
from getting butter prices for a cheaper substitiite. Against this 
condition of affairs the producers and consumers of butter are 
helpless unless Congress comes to their relief. 

The present laws for the protection of the public from fraud in 
the sale of oleomargarine have failed, and it is because of the fail- 
ure of these laws, State and national, that this Congress is ap- 
pealed to. Thirty-two States have enacted statutes against the 
sale of colored oleomargarine. These statutes have been found 
unequal to the task of protecting the public, and twenty yeai'S of 
experience has shown that only a law which shall control the 
manufacturer and the nature of his product will accomplish the 
desired end. The evil must be met at its own source and freed 
from fraud before it gets into the great channels of trade. Human 
experience has demonstrated the insufficiency of State laws to 
protect the public from this fraud. 

Experience has also shown that only a law which will clearly 
distinguish between butter and oleomargarine, in some way that 
the one can not be sold for the other and the public deceived, will 
meet this growing evil and avert the danger which threatens the 
legitimate dairy industry of the nation. Gentlemen may quibble, 
ma)' talk of the rights of the oleomargarine manufacturer to de- 
ceive the consumer, but the fact remains that only a national color 
law will meet the evil. 

As long as oleomargarine can be made and put on the market 
in imitation of butter, resembling juire butter in color, so long 
will it be sold as butter. In voting on this question wo must take 
one horn of the dilemma; we must either allow this admitted evil 
to continue or we must stop the sale of an imitation for the pure 
article. The people of the United States demand this action, as 
4517 



is shown by the multitude of memorials before the Committes on 
Agriculture. In another way, however, the public sentiment of the 
nation has been shown on this question. Over thirty States have 
enacted statutes intended to protect the people from deception in 
the natiire of the food they buy under the name of butter, Not 
a single one of these statutes has ever been repealed. Can any 
more direct testimonial be desired of the nature of public senti- 
ment on this question? 

We have heard before the Committee on Agriculture a great 
deal of argument against the bill, during which much was sa'.d of 
oleomargarine as a food for the poor, because it is cheai^er than 
butter. The representatives of the oleomargarine manufacturers 
have posed as the friends of the poor man. Now, if this statement 
of the representatives of the oleomargarine manufacturers is true, 
why do they wish to color their product and sell it at butter prices? 
How does the poor consumer benefit from the sale of oleomarga- 
rine when he pays butter prices for it? Would a law forbidding 
the coloring of oleomargarine prevent the poor from buying it? 
Would such a law in any way restrict his right and opportunity 
to consume it? 

No reasonable man will contend that it will. If the poor or any 
other class of consumers wish to eat oleomargarine Instead of 
butter, this bill will not prevent them doing so. The dairymen 
and butter consumers of the country do not ask that any indi- 
vidual who prefers oleomargarine shall not be allowed to buy and 
consume it at his wish. Let butter be sold as butter, and the imi- 
tation as imitation. As said before, oleomargarine can be sold to 
the consumer for from 10 to 15 cents a pound. 

This being so, how does the poor man benefit from the sale of 
oleomargarine when he is charged from 15 to 25 cents a pound 
for it, the regular price of pure butter? The bill lowers the tax 
on oleomargarine as such to one-quarter of a cent a pomid, and 
if it is left uncolored, or is colored some other color than that of 
butter, the consumer, the poor consumer, will get it at its rightful 
price, and will be saved from 5 to 15 cents a pound of wliat he is 
now charged. Nothing shows the hypocrisy of the argument of 
the oleomargarine manufacturers more clearly than their un- 
willingness to sell their pj-oduct for what it really is at its proper 
4517 



8 

price. They claim to be the friends of the poor raan, and at the 
same time insist that they "be allowed to sell hiui oleomargarine at 
butter prices-. 

This fact was sho\Yn in my own State within the past few years, 
when nnmerous convictions were had of retail dealers for sailing 
colored oleomargarine against the State law. The oleomargarine 
was sold to the poor, but was sold as butter and for butter prices. 
In no case, as far as I am aware, was the imitation sold otherwise 
than as pure butter and for the best buTtter prices. This is the 
whole contention, this is the whole opposition to the bill. " We 
must be allowed to sell our product for butter," is th3 cry of the 
oleomargarine industry, " and we must color it to imitate butter 
to do this." 

The enormous profits resulting from selling oleomargarine at 
butter prices has caused the bitter fight against this bill. The 
same enormous profits have caused the creation of a huge fund 
for the defense of dealers arrested charged with the violation of 
State laws in the sale of oleomargarine. The profits are so great 
that men are willing to take many risks of fine and imprisonment' 
and the manufacturers are willing to spend large sums to keep 
the market open to their imitation butter. 

One of the principal arguments used against this bill has been 
the importance of the oleomargarine industry and the large sums 
invested in the plants of the manufacturers. The bill, we have 
been assured, will seriously impair the prosperity of this busi- 
ness, and thereby injui'e a large established industry. The im- 
mensity of the dairy interests which are being undermined by the 
fraudulept sa':eof oleomargarine as biitter has received but scant 
attention from the plausible gentlemen who have been before the 
committee. The importance of the oleomargarine business, ex- 
cept to the millionaire owners of the business, is a matter of 
opinion. 

The importance to the country of the prosperity of the millions 
of farmers engaged in the production of butter is a matter of fact. 
The two classes of prodtVjts can not Jive together. Pure bv.tter 
or colored oleomargarine must give way. Either the sale of 
colored oleomargarine sold as butter must end, or the farmers 
engaged in the manufacture of butter must forfeit their pros- 
perity. Which is the most important to the country? Can any 
4517 



9 

reasonable man sincerely believe that the prosperity of a handful 
of manufacturers, numbering 20 firms, to be of greater importance 
than the prosperity of 5,030,000 or more farmers who depend 
either wholly or partly on the butter market for their well-being? 
Is the piling up of a few colossal fortunes better to the nation 
than the prosperity of the farmers scattered over the smiling face 
of the country? 

The farmer is the great consumer, and on his financial welfare 
depends, more than on any other, the well-being of the rest of us, 
and the fact, for fact it is, can not be too strongly dwelt upon, 
that either he must suffer serious loss or the sale of oleomargarine 
as pure butter must stop. In 1899 the oleomargarine product was 
over 83,000,000 pounds, and more thanthree-fourthsof that was sold 
as butter. Every pound sold as butter displaced a pound of butter 
and took the value of that pound of butter from the pockets of the 
farmer. Were this done by legitimate competition there could be 
but little objection, but all this immense loss to the farmers of the 
country was caused by fraud, was caused by the consumer who 
■wished to obtain the farmer "s product being deceived and tricked 
into buying something he did not want at a price far in excess 
of a legitimate profit. 

The sale of oleomargarine is steadily increasing at an average 
rate of 20 per cent a year, and if this continues, as it is most likely 
to unless some legislative safeguards are thrown about the con- 
sumer, the butter makers of the land will scon have to divide 
the market with this cheaper substitute, and the consumers v/ill 
be sold more and more of an article they do not want in the guise 
of what they do want. 

Considering the facts, aside from the exaggerations of the im- 
portance of the oleomargarine industry, it is easy to see how 
entirely insignificant the oleomargarine interest is when compared 
with the dairy interests of even a single State. If the injury 
which we are assured this bill will work to the oleomargarine 
business is to be made the test, we will readily appreciate the 
greater claim of the dairymen and consumers for protection. 
Much has been said before the committee of tha immensity and 
importance of the oleomargarine industry. 

The fact is that the entire oleomargarine business, as measured 
by the value of the plants, machinery, and fixtures of the 26 fac- 
4517 



10 

tories, is not equal to the value of the plants, machinery, and 
fixtures of the 252 dairy plants of my district alone. Think of it ! 
The entire value of the plants, machinery, and fixtures of the oleo- 
margarine factories of the United States not equal to capital 
5nvested in dairy plants in one Congressional district of four 
counties. 

One of the largest oleomargarine manufactories in the country 
is that of William J. Moxley & Co., of Chicago. According to 
the last statement by this firm to one of our most reliable mercan- 
tile agencies, the value of this plant, fixtures, and machinery is 
$30,850.63. There are 26 such factories in the United States, the 
majority of them smaller and with less capital than this one and 
■with less invested in machinery and fixtures. 

The Moxley plant being worth $30,000, it is fair to estimate the 
average value of the oleomargarine plants, machinery, and fix- 
tures at $25,000. There are 26 oleomargarine manufactories in the 
United States, and at the average value of $25,000 the total value 
of these plants would be $650,000, That is the value of the plants, 
machinery, and fixtures of the oleomargarine factories of the 
United States. 

How does this compare with the value of the creameries of a 
single State, or, better still, a single Congressional district? If it is 
a business of such magnitude as has been urged, surely it must be 
worth more than the creameries of four counties comprising the 
Second Wisconsin district. There are 252 creameries in my dis- 
trict, worth on an average $2,700, making a total value for the 
creameries of the district, taking only the values of the plants, 
machinery, and fixtures, $680,000, or $30,000 more than the entire 
value of the plants, machinery, and fixtures of all the oleomar- 
garine factories of the United States. 

This oleomargarine business, because established, now comes 
before us and argues that it is of such importance and has so much 
money invested in it that it has the right to undermine and fraud- 
ulently ruin one of the oldest legitimate agricultural industries of 
the country. It defends itself against this bill on the ground that 
it is so important, and yet it has lesis money invested than is in- 
vested in the legitimate dairy industry of a single Congressional 
district. 

4517 



11 

In the State of Wisconsin there are 951 creameries, with an av- 
erage value of $2,700, making a total value for the State in plants, 
machinery, and fixtures of $2,567,700. Set against this sum the 
value of the plants, machinerj-, and fixtures of the oleomargarine 
factories of the country, which was given before as $550,000. and 
you can readily see the insignificant amount invested in the imita- 
tion business when compared with the legitimate industr}'. 

The representatives of the oleomargarine manufacturers have 
laid great stress on the amount of money invested in their busi- 
ness as the reason why it should be allowed to continue its fraud- 
ulent practice. If the amount invested is the test, how small a 
voice should the oleomargarine business have in this discussion as 
compared with the colossal amount invested in butter making in 
my State alone, not counting the other great dairy States of the 
Union. 

This method of measuring the relative importance of the two 
industries is the best one, for it precUides the consideration of 
watered stock, overcapitalization, and exaggerated values. The 
average statement as to the value of the oleomargarine business 
is unreliable because of the impossibility of knowing the exact 
conditions of the business. In order to make the investment of 
the industry look large, the representatives of the oleomarga- 
rine industry figure in immense outstanding accounts, large 
amount of cash on hand, great quantities of stamps kept in the 
offices of the concerns. 

The Moxley Company claims total assets at $291,581.16. This is 
made up, however, chiefly of cash on hand, stamps, bank deposits, 
and outstanding accounts. Its plant, machinery, and fixtures are 
worth but $30,850.63 on its own statement; and the actual value 
of the plant, with the fixtures and machinery considered, is the 
only true way to measure the two industries. Were the stock 
kept on hand by the dairymen to be known and the value of their 
outstanding accounts capable of being measured, they would sliow 
a sura so immense the amount claimed for the oleomargarine 
industry would sink into insignificance. 

The nece.-sity of some Federal legislation for the protection of 
the consumer and the legitimate butter producer can not be more 
clearly shown than by the immense quantity of oleomargarine 
4517 



12 

sold, colored like butter, in the States where such sale is al3so- 
lute'y prohibited. I can speak more knowingly, Mr. Speaker, of 
my own State, where I am somewhat familiar with the condi- 
tions, and the efforts that have been made to enforce the law. 
Some years ago a statute was passed absolutely forbidding the 
sale of oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. 

I know from personal knowledge that the most strenuous efforts 
have been made by the State dairy and food inspector to enforce 
this law, and numerous convictions were had for its violation. 
In each of these cases colored oleomargarine was sold to con- 
sumers who asked for butter, and they were charged butter 
prices. In spite, however, of the stringent State law, and the 
earnest efforts of the State authorities to enforce it, 714,742 
pounds of yellow oleomargarine were sold in Wisconsin in 1899. 
This is from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Notwithstanding this report and the uudisputable evidence of 
the sales it offers in Wisconsin, you may travel the State over and 
you will not find a pound of oleomargarine for sale as such. Over 
half a million pounds sold in the State, and not a pound offered 
on the market as oleomargarine. Requests in several cities of the 
State for oleomargarine by would-be consumers was met by the 
statement from dealers that there was no oleomargarine on the 
market in Wisconsin. The conditions in Wisconsin are but a sam- 
ple of the conditions prevailing all over the United States, and 
demonstrate most effectual!}' the necessity for a Federal law for 
the protection of the legitimate industry. 

The experience of many years, both among the officials whose 
duty it is to enforce the law and among men of large experience 
in the marketing of dairy products, has also taught the necessity 
of such legislation as the pending bill. I have had some corre- 
spondence with various firms of long experience in the dairy 
markers in various States, firms which as a merchant and manu- 
facturer I have intrusted with my own goods. They are unani- 
mous in saying that only a Federal law taxing colored oleomarga- 
rine, so that its cost to the retailer will be equal to that of butter, 
will be effective. I quote from some of these letters: 

Potter & Williams, Buffalo, N. Y.: 

Your esteemed favor of May 10 is to hand and noted. In reply we would 
say that from our point of view there is no question but what Mr. Grout's 
4517 



13 

bill slioiild become law. The laws of the State of Now York governing the 
sale of oleomargarine are in all probability as prohibitive as the laws of any 
State in the Union, nevertheless the oleomargarine manufacturers find a 
way of getting around our law, with the result that thousands and thousands 
of pounds are sold all over the State of New York, not sold as oleomargarine, 
but sold for butter and colored to look like butter. Our present law forbids 
the coloring of oleomargarine, and when it is uncolored it is almo.st as white 
as lard, but in defiance of the law the goods are colored to resemble butter 
and are sold for butter. 

One of our nearest neighbors was apprehended this spring with something 
over 500 packages of oleomargarine on hand. His sales jirevious to the time 
of his apprehension amounted to thousands and thousands of packages, all of 
which he sold for butter. He also claims that he bought it for butter. We 
understand the fines due the State of New York from this one man alone 
amount to aboiit S1G,000, but as yet nothing has been done. Whether the 
manufacturers of the oleomargarine are protecting him or not we do not 
know, but at all events the State authorities are not bothering him any now. 

During the time our neighbor was handling oleomargarine every i^ackage 
of it took the place of a package of pure butter and affected the deinand for 
pure butter to just that extent. We and all others who were dealing hon- 
estly in the pure article during the time that our neighbor was handling 
oleomargarine were practically put out of business. We could not compete 
with him in price, and apparently his goods were just as good as any pure 
butter. 

Up to the present time the manufacturers of oleomargarine appear to 
have been strong enough to defeat the object of all State laws so far as they 
interfered with the sale of oleomargarine. At the present time no one knows 
when he buys a pound of butter at the retail store whether he is I'eally tak- 
ing homo butter or oleomargarine. 

Mr. Grout's bill, of course, is in the interests of dairymen, but at the same 
time it is also in the interest of every person who desires to deal honestly iu 
honest goods, and in the interest of every family in the United States. 

A. H. Barber, commission merchant, Chicago: 

I surely think that the Grout bill will be a great benefit to all the farmers 
who are interested in the dairy business. I think that at least seven-eighths 
of all oleomargarine is sold over the coianters by the retailers as butter, and 
if these goods were made uncolored they could not be pawned off to the con- 
sumers for butter. The manufacturers and the wholesalers, I think, as a 
usual thing sell it to the retailers as butterine or oleomargarine. 

It is a fact that the sale of oleomargarine has driven the dairymen qxiite 
largely out of business, as the prices on genuine butter have been so low the 
past two or three years that but very few factories are getting much more 
thanhalf the amount of milkthey formerly did. This past winter butter has 
ruled higher than formerly, on account of the smaller production of butter. 
If the Grout bill should become a law, it would stimulate the dairymen to 
increase their herds, and the consequence would Ije a larger jiroduction of 
butter, and the prices of dairy products would rule at a remunerative price to 
the farmer. 

Pitt, Barnum & Co., New York: 

The State law prohibits the sale of butterine and oleomargarine in our 
State, but, beyond all doubt, there is lots of it sold— and it is sold as genuine 
butter. Our State dairy commissioner is watching it very closely, and has 
prosecuted a number of cases successfully. There can be no doubt but that 
the unlawful sale of butterine and oleomai-prai'ine has its eftVct iipon the de- 
mand and price of pure butter in the sections where they are selling it on 
the quiet. 
4517 



14 

T. L. Briimlage, commission merchant, Cleveland, Ohio: 

Since receiving your letter I iiave had a conversation with Mr. Reynolds, 
who was deputy dairy commissioner for a time, and he tells me that he is 
satisfied that, from the investigations he has made, fully one half of the oleo- 
margarine sold is sold to the customers for butter, and of course so far as 
the influence of such sales are concerned on the price of pure butter it must 
certainly have a great effect, and it can not be otherwise, and as so much of 
it is being used the demand for butter is very much smaller. I do not thin*^ 
that it is sold to the retailer for butter, but it is the retailer that sells it to 
the consumer for butter. The rctai!er without doubt knows what he is 
handling, and the consumer is the one who suffers, and the dairy industry is 
crippled and injured also. 

Earl Brothers, Chicago: 

We find that the sale of colored butterine, or oleomargarine, is certainly 
injurioiis, and also know that it hurts the sale of butter. 

Mr. Speaker, the Republican party has a traditional policy of 
protection to American industries from destructive foreign com- 
petition. To that policy the great party to which we belong is 
committed heart and soul. Protection is the cornerstone of Re- 
publican policy. Is it consistent to protect the manufacturing 
industries of the United States from destructive foreign competi- 
tion and leave the greatest industry of America, that of agricul- 
ture, open to the onslaughts of an insidioiTS foe from behind? 

Can we justify ourselves before the people in our policy of pro- 
tection if we leave the farmers of the United States at the mercy 
of a fraudulent business, which is demoralizing one of the princi- 
pal agricultural industries of our country? Is it not as worthy 
and, indeed, as necessary, to protect this great agricultural in- 
dustry from ruinous and fraudulent competition at home as well 
as from injurious competition with underpaid lalor abroad? 

The dairymen of the United States are protected from Canadian 
competition by a tariff. The injury that the Canadian butter 
makers could do the dairy industry of the United States, how- 
ever, is slight when compared with the ravages being made in 
the legitimate dairy industry by the ruinous competition of the 
oleomargarine dealers selling their imitation as butter. If the 
General Government felt it its duty to protest the dairymen of 
the country from Canadian competition, how much more is it the 
duty of the Government to now step in and protect them from 
this new danger, compared with which the Canadian competition 
is a mere incident. 

The real danger to the dairy industry is from within, not from 
4517 



15 

without, the United States. The Government protects the iron 
industry with a tariff of $4 a ton on i)ig iron, $1 a ton on iron ore, 
seven-twentieths of a cent a pound on steel rails, and a half a cent 
a pound on structural steel. Lumher is protected by a tariff of 
from $1 to $2 a thousand feet; shoe leather, 20 per cent ad valorem ; 
chinavvare, 55 per cent; brick, 45 per cent; and many others, ex- 
amples of which might be multiplied. 

All this protection is practical, because the danger to these in- 
dustries is from foreign competition with its underpaid labor. 
These industries have nothing to fear from imitations at home. 
Brick can not be easily imitated by some cheap?r substitute. 
Steel rails can not be made from the waste slag of iron foundries. 
Shoes can not be made from the leather scraps of harness shops. 
They have nothing to fear from an imitation made of far cheaxier 
materials, but which can not be detected by the consumer. The 
position of butter is unique. It can be successfully imitated in 
taste and appearance so that the consumer is unable, without 
making a chemical test, to recognize the true from the false. 

This being the case, it becomes the duty of the Government to 
protect the public from imposition in the nature of the food it 
buys, and at the same time protect the farmers of the nation from 
the danger which is staring them in the face. Congress has de- 
fended the American farmer when he was threatened from without 
by comparatively harmless foes. Shall it now desert him when 
he is threatened from within by a stalwart enemy? Shall Con- 
gress, after its long career as the friend of the American farmer, 
desert him in his hour of need? Let us join in saying "No," by 
voting for the Grout bill. 
i517 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRES<; 

000 891 375 I'"' 



■ Dl3 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




DDDDflT1375H 



% 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



